By Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation, University of Toronto

Laws criminalizing cannabis possession for personal use have had a disproportionate negative impact on Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) in Canada. For example, recent data show that Black and Indigenous populations are substantially overrepresented in cannabis possession arrests in Canada.

In October 2018, Canada became the second country to nationally regulate recreational cannabis production and sales. Many heralded the promise of this newly legal industry as an opportunity to rectify the injustices experienced by BIPOC under cannabis prohibition.

The aim of this project was to examine the race and gender of c-suite level executives and directors of licensed producers 2 and parent companies 3 operating in the Canadian cannabis industry, in order to assess whether the promise of an equitable legal cannabis market has been achieved.

How diverse is Canada’s legal cannabis industry? Examining race and gender of its executives and directors

By Anyone's Child, Families for safer drug control & Transform, Drug Policy Foundation

‘Drug prohibition’ is the global system under which the production, supply and sale of certain controlled substances are subject to strict criminal penalties and enforcement. There is nothing inevitable about this approach; rather it is the consequence of treaties that were established by the United Nations over fifty years ago, and which remain largely unchanged since. While prohibition remains the global norm, it places the entire drug market in the hands of organised crime. The illegal market is lucrative and is still expanding despite half a century of the so-called ‘drug war’. With no regulatory oversight, and no recourse to legal protection, the exploitation of children and vulnerable people has become a primary tool of many organised crime groups (OCGs) as they seek to maximise profit and evade law enforcement. We believe that this must change. By legally regulating the drug market – putting production and supply under strict controls – both the opportunity and profit motive for human exploitation in the drug trade will diminish, undermining the power of OCGs and reducing the risks to vulnerable people.

The prohibition of drugs has long been justified on the grounds that it protects young and vulnerable people. Its supporters claim that, by criminalising people who use and supply drugs, we can reduce consumption and keep people safe. But experience of the past 50 years demonstrates that prohibition cannot achieve these aims, and in fact actively undermines them.

Reforming drug policies to reduce the trafficking and exploitation of vulnerable people

The drugs field deploys a huge range of technical terms and jargon. Much of this is borrowed from other fields – medicine, research, statistics, sociology etc. There are also terms used by people who use drugs and terms specific to treatment and recovery contexts. Of course, most of these terms are adequately defined in a good dictionary.

However, there are terms which have become key terms within the drugs field which involve some specialist knowledge to fully understand their significance. Some of this terminology is contested or commonly misunderstood. There is also a wider discourse around drugs, drug use and related issues that involves people who use drugs, the media and the wider public. Some of the language used within this wider sphere is contentious or misunderstood.

This glossary was developed originally for SDF board members, staff, trainees and volunteers. In publishing it, SDF aims to improve communication and shared understanding across the drugs field in Scotland by increasing understanding of the language used both in everyday conversation and discussion of drug issues and in more specialist environments.This glossary clarifies the nature of any contention so that people can at least understand the viewpoints of others and, hopefully, any limitation in their own insight, when they cannot agree. SDF’s own organisational language choices are explained.

SDF has stakeholders who use all of the terms described here and it is important that as far as possible, people can understand each other and that unnecessary contention or conflict across the drugs field can be eliminated.

Moving beyond 'people-first' language: A glossary of contested terms in substance use

Following its first-ever critical review of cannabis, in January 2019 the World Health Organization issued a collection of formal recommendations to reschedule cannabis and cannabis-related substances. 53 member states of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) are set to vote on these recommendations in December 2020.

Among the WHO’s recommendations, two in particular appear to be the most urgent: namely recommendation 5.1 (concerning the acknowledgment of cannabis’ medicinal usefulness) and recommendation 5.4 (concerning the need to remove the term ‘extracts and tinctures of cannabis’ from the 1961 Convention). Supporting these two recommendations presents an opportunity for governments and civil society to further reform and decolonise drug control approaches across the globe, as well as to strengthen the international legal basis for existing and emerging medicinal cannabis programmes in different parts of the world.

In this regard, the recommended principle ‘asks’ for advocates and policy makers are to:

Support the most urgent recommendations 5.1 and 5.4.

Actively engage with CND members, emphasising the urgent nature of recommendations 5.1 and 5.4.

Actively engage in relevant meetings and processes at the CND level, as well as emphasising the need for further follow-ups to the critical review.

Actively engage and encourage support from other governments and key regional stakeholders, as well relevant civil society organisations, experts, and affected communities.

Cannabis rescheduling: A global introduction

The importance of community involvement in the design and development of health policies and programming has been formalised as a key principle within health policy agendas since the 1978 Alma Ata Declaration. A human rights and community empowerment approach has also been promoted as a key enabler for a successful response to the HIV epidemic. Such principles are also the foundation for harm reduction, where the involvement of people who use drugs is described as central to ensuring accessible, effective and responsive harm reduction services.


Despite the often-stated benefits of community involvement for harm reduction, clear and comprehensive evidence for how different forms of community involvement have impact is limited.

Bridging the gaps: a global partnership for research


The Bridging the Gaps II (BTGII) programme supported by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs aims to support action on community involvement. This unique programme addresses the common challenges faced by sex workers, people who use drugs and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in terms of human rights violations and accessing much needed HIV and health services. BTGII seeks to address twin priorities: 1) to support the development of existing community involvement processes in contexts where the health and rights of people who use drugs are threatened, and 2) foster a global evidence base for community involvement in contexts of harm reduction.

Community Matters: Lessons from a Bridging the Gaps research programme


All participants without exception regard the fight for the respect, protection and fulfilment of the inalienable human rights of people who use drugs as a defining, fundamental feature of the drug user rights movement (hereafter referred to as ‘the movement’). The movement has promoted self-determination, the notion that “people who use drugs are people” (Angela), and the “upholding [of] human dignity” (Anand). Fundamentally, it is a “peace generating kind of movement” (Brun), born out of necessity, “passion” (Charles) and fighting for social justice for people who use drugs, at times when the scale of human rights violations in many countries has been staggering. Indeed, many participants became involved in movement after they or those close to them had experienced “life-threatening events” (Andria). The movement is about the rights to self-determination over one’s own body, decision-making and consciousness. Furthermore, although participants phrased this more implicitly, the movement has also been concerned with achieving broader economic, social and cultural rights for people who use drugs, such as the right to access appropriate, non-judgemental and non-coercive health services, and safe housing.

The movement is not only about people who use drugs having access to the resources that society can offer, but also society having access to the resources that people who use drugs can offer; indeed, many participants highlighted the positive contribution they have made to their communities and societies, and want people who use drugs to be welcomed as “resources” (Arild) for society rather than “scapegoated” (Jude) for societal problems. The movement is about being at the heart of decision-making, and “meaningful involvement” (Simon) when policies are being made and implemented, in the spirit of ‘Nothing about us, without us.’

A movement fighting criminalisation and prohibition


Participants were unanimous that empowerment of people who use drugs and full respect for their rights can only be achieved by “dismantling prohibition” of drug use and drug possession (Jude). Criminalisation, and the repressive, oppressive laws and policies through which it is enacted, have been and continue to be at the root of all other harms and violations people who use drugs experience. Criminalisation of people who use drugs has been an impediment to engaging with public and community-services and has also created obstacles to finding employment and other opportunities which may help to “resolve” (Shaun) potentially more problematic aspects of drug use. Several participants discussed criminalisation as a “tool of racism” (Andria) and an “imperialist, colonialist” policy (Zoe), the direct consequences of which - police brutality, violence, extortion and arbitrary arrests – have disproportionately affected Black, Brown, indigenous and poorer people who use drugs due to “apartheid-style policing” (Shaun).

Fundamentally, criminalisation is not “science-based” (Hollis), “makes no sense” (Jude), and the associated so-called War on Drugs was seen as “the single most catastrophic global public policy fiasco disaster” (Geoff), “a political construct” which has cost countless lives. Participants spoke of ulterior motives driving the War on Drugs, for example as a “proxy” (Shaun) for repressive governments to achieve their political goals and retain a strong grip on power, or as economic fuel for a “1.5 trillion dollar… mass incarceration” industry in the US (Robert).

Taking back what's ours! A documented history of the movement of people who use drugs

By the International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD)

"We live in a very difficult time in human history with many uncertainties and complex problems. The systemic human rights abuses faced by illicit drug users is one problem that can actually be fixed with the rescinding of the global UN conventions that legitimise and perpetuate the “war on people who use drugs.” INPUD is playing a crucial role in making the case for an end to the failed global policy of prohibition and there is much work to be proud of that you can see in this document.

INPUD’s presence in global advocacy forums is especially important. INPUD provides a global voice for a community that has struggled in the face of adversity and oppression to gain access to basic respect let alone access to harm reduction services. The time has come for those who know that prohibition is tantamount to genocide to speak up and help INPUD, user organisations and drug users all around the world.

I especially wish to recommend that people watch the 10 part documentary series “Taking Back What’s Ours! An Oral History of the Movement of People Who Use Drugs”. Throughout the world drug user led advocacy has become a crucial part of the struggle to protect and defend the health and human rights of the drug using community."

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

INPUD Annual Report 2018-2019

Global Drug Survey (GDS) is an independent research organisation based in London. We run the world’s largest drug survey. We use an encrypted online platform to collect anonymous drug use data from across the world. Our mission is to promote honest conversations about drug use and help people use drugs more safely regardless of the legal status of the drug. To date over 900,000 people have taken part in our surveys and we have published over 60 academic papers.

The GDS Special Edition on COVID-19 was developed as part of a global effort to better understand the impact of the pandemic on people’s lives with a specific focus on the use of alcohol and other drugs, mental health and relationships.

The survey ran for 7 weeks (May-June 2020) and was available in 10 languages: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. The survey received 59,969 valid responses. There were 20 countries where we received 100 or more responses, and 10 countries where we received 1000 or more responses. For ease of reporting and to avoid sub-samples with low numbers, we have included only the top 11 countries listed in order of sample size: Germany, France, Ireland, Brazil, Switzerland, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, and United States (with only the US falling below N=1000). The total global sample size we report on here (total of these 11 countries) is 55,811.

GDS data is from a non-probability sample and thus our findings are not representative of the wider population. The majority of our participants tend to be young, experienced with the use of illicit drugs, and employed or in education. We have included questions that are relevant to marginalised and vulnerable groups of people who use drugs, yet these groups are largely underrepresented online.

Because we ask the same questions in the same way across different regions, our data can be used to highlight local variations and to explore how different groups are coping with COVID-19 and related restrictions. The data further allow us to identify relationships between different behaviors and outcomes, for example between changes in drug use and mental health. In this report we highlight the most noteworthy findings that followed the completion of Special Edition. If you would like to access further analysis or use our data please contact us at adam@globaldrugsurvey.com .

We would like to thank INPUD (International Network of People who Use Drugs) for their support in contributing to the funding of this project and all our research and media partners globally. This survey received ethics approval from University College London.

Global Drug Survey COVID-19 special edition: Key findings report

By Professor Catriona Matheson, Lesley Bon, Louise Bowman, Katy MacLeod, Adrienne Hannah, Anthony Knox

Scottish Drugs Forum was awarded Scottish Government funding to conduct baseline research with particular at-risk populations and frontline services to identify specific risks in terms of drug use and sexual health, treatment needs, information needs and what workers need to know in order to support these populations effectively. This would inform the development of information and training resources and programmes, ensuring that the workforce and service providers working with the three target groups are fully trained and equipped to support service users with their sexual health, blood borne viruses and harm reduction needs. The at-risk populations were:

Men who have sex with men (MSM) involved in Chemsex,

People who use image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs),

People (men and women) involved in transactional sex who use drugs.

It is key that these different populations have their individual risk behaviours and information needs understood and addressed rather than applying universal prevention/harm reduction approaches used when addressing substance use issues. Equally it is important that services are fully equipped, skilled and confident when responding to these target groups and engaging them in prevention/harm reduction.

Chemsex has been a growing and emerging trend within the MSM population over the last 5-10 years. Chemsex involves the use of psychoactive drugs, commonly referred to as “chems”. Mephedrone, gamma hydroxybutyrate/gamma butyrolactone (GHB/GBL) and methamphetamine are the most commonly used substances (Bourne et al, 2014). Some of these men inject the drugs intravenously, which they refer to as ‘slamming’. Chems are often used during sexual activity to enhance pleasure and reduce inhibitions. This can result in increased risk taking around sex and drug use, including condomless sex, which can lead to higher rates of STIs and BBVs (Ottaway, Finnerty, Amlani et al., 2017; Page & Nelson, 2016). According to the Scottish Government BBV framework, young people and MSM are identified as being the highest at-risk groups for STI transmission and MSM and people who inject drugs have the highest risk of HIV in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2015).

Recent IPEDs research has identified that people who use IPEDs report a broad range of illicit and prescription drugs taken alongside IPEDs which present a variety of possible health risks and may impact on additional risk-taking behaviours. The uptake of BBV testing and vaccination by people who use IPEDs is reported as low, although reasons for this are unclear. (Begley et al, 2017) Previous research with people who use IPEDs found they relied on other IPED users for information about drugs, which was often inaccurate. They also often had their drugs injected by other IPED users (Santos & Coomber, 2017). Some risk behaviours have already been identified such as using small narrow bore needles that can break off in muscle tissue (Dunn et al, 2014). Furthermore, in the UK tensions have been identified between service providers and IPED users as a result of different perspectives of potential risk behaviours and interventions (Kimergard & McVeigh, 2014). In addition to injecting risk taking, in terms of sexual health, people who use IPEDs often report high rates of sexual activity but low levels of condom use which would suggest a significant risk factor for STIs and BBVs (Begley et al, 2017).

People involved in transactional sex who use drugs may experience a range of challenges including stigma, exploitation and trauma which have an impact on risk taking behaviours relating to drug use and sex. These challenges may affect engagement with support services. There is evidence globally that sexual health services may focus on MSM and the general population whilst vulnerable female groups such as those involved in transactional sex are under-provided for (Pinkham & Sepruch, 2008). There are known risks for people involved in transactional sex such as the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, risks associated with injecting drug use (BBV, injection injury, overdose etc), and violence (Spice, 2007). However it is surprising how little research has been conducted recently which is specific to the Scottish population and considers changes in drug use (e.g. new psychoactive substances) as well as the rise in drug related deaths in women (Tweed et al, 2018).

As part of the funding agreement SDF, working with an experienced health service researcher (CoI, CM), undertook research across Scotland with each of these groups, to inform the content of a training programme for staff working with these populations. Although these three groups are quite distinct the information being sought, and the purpose of seeking that information is the same. This report describes the data collection and findings of interviews with each target group as well as focus groups with service providers. It then identifies key issues for training and service development.

Understanding the sexual health and blood borne virus risk behaviours of defined 'at risk' groups to inform a service training programme

Prior reports in this series, on the situation in Moldova and Belarus, are available here.

The phenomenon of new psychoactive substances (NPS) started decades ago with the growth and production of drugs that replicate the effects of controlled drugs (such as amphetamines, cocaine, cannabis and heroin) but avoid legislative control based on different chemical structures.

In recent years, the increasing use of NPS has led to new threats for health of people who use drugs (PWUD) – including overdose, psychotic reactions, high HIV risks due to multiple injections and increased number of sexual contacts. However, in many countries service providers such as harm reduction, drug treatment programs and ambulance services are not prepared to provide PWUD with quality support and counselling to reduce risks of NPS.

In the Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (CEECA) region the situation with NPS is truly alarming and has become one of the major challenges for the national public health systems, local NGOs, communities PWUD.

EHRA in partnership with School of Law, Swansea University undertook the project “New Psychoactive Substance Use in Moldova, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Serbia” to generate a more accurate picture of the use of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and to assess harm reduction and law enforcement responses to the emerging issues related to use of NPS. Results from this project will supplement scarce international data on the use of NPS in these countries, present a more accurate picture of their use, and provide information to national civil society organizations (CSOs) for political advocacy.

New psychoactive substance use in Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Serbia

In their Global State of Harm Reduction: 2019 updates, HRI note that the spread of harm reduction services is still stalling globally in continuation of a trend observed since 2012. The 2018 Global State of Harm Reduction 2018 briefing, highlights that although women are estimated to account for one third people who use drugs globally and are consistently reported to have less access to harm reduction services and to be at higher risk of HIV and hepatitis C infection, robust data on this subject is scarce, and research on drug use and related health issues rarely produces information about women. While tools exist to enable harm reduction services to institute a gender lens and gender mainstreaming in their programming in order to improve relevance and reach to women who use drugs, services that have introduced such approaches are thin on the ground. Where they do exist, there is not necessarily scope to document and promote experience. In order to leverage greater accountability from governments that have endorsed UN guidelines and resolutions around provision of services for women who use drugs, it is important to document and promote such services where they do exist, so that models of replication can be resourced and established at other harm reduction programmes, while pressure builds to reverse the stalling of actions that improve respectful access to health for women who use drugs. With this in mind, WHRIN undertook a survey, in order to attempt a ‘mapping’ of women friendly services around the world.

Regional focal points identified among membership worked with WHRIN coordinator to create survey participant lists targeting two well networked women who use drugs and two additional key informants (KI) with a good understanding of harm reduction services in their country. Per country (or state/province in Canada, US and Australia). Separate short survey monkeys were created per region, applying the same 7 questions aimed to identify key barriers to service access and to ‘map’ harm reduction services designed for women who use drugs.

In total, 15 people responded to the survey, and were either women who use drugs (WUD) or other key informants. Participants were based in the following countries; Greece, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Sweden, England, Portugal, Germany. The majority of the respondents (80%) identified as WUD.

Mapping harm reduction services for women who use drugs: Western Europe region

By Vicki J. Hanson, Pien Metaal and Dania Putri

Following its first-ever critical review of cannabis, in January 2019 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a collection of formal recommendations to reschedule cannabis and cannabis-related substances. 53 member states of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), two of which are Caribbean states, are set to vote on these recommendations in December 2020.

Among the WHO’s recommendations, two in particular appear to be the most urgent and relevant for Caribbean countries: namely recommendation 5.1 (concerning the acknowledgment of cannabis’ medicinal usefulness) and recommendation 5.4 (concerning the need to remove the term ‘extracts and tinctures of cannabis’ from the 1961 Convention). Supporting these two recommendations presents an opportunity for Caribbean governments and civil society to decolonise drug control approaches in the region, as well as to strengthen the international legal basis for emerging medicinal cannabis programmes in several Caribbean countries. Also, it provides the historical opportunity to gain global recognition for two deeply rooted and unique traditions: the use of cannabis as sacrament in religious Rastafarian practise, and its use as traditional medicine, particularly but not exclusively by the Maroon community.

In this regard, the recommended principle ‘asks’ for Caribbean advocates and policy makers are to:

Actively engage with CND members, in particular Jamaica, the only English-speaking Caribbean member of CND, emphasising the urgent nature of recommendations 5.1 and 5.4.

Actively engage and encourage support from other Caribbean governments and other key stakeholders such as CARICOM and OECS, as well relevant civil society organisations, experts, and affected communities.

Publications from IDPC Members